ocked multiplier, but that is only found in
extreme edition cores that cost so much money it defeats the purpose of
overclocking in the first place - which is getting lots of extra mhz from a
CHEAP cpu.> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com> Subject:
RE: [H] RE:Dual cor
als
> and the process itself does sometimes favor specific production weeks.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3
t; Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:46 PM
> To: The Hardware List
> Subject: Re: [H] RE:Dual core or Quad core?
>
> On 11/8/07, Winterlight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > no it is the same process. Using a highly engineered device
> > beyond it's speci
On 11/8/07, Winterlight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no it is the same process. Using a highly engineered device
> beyond it's specifications with the potential of negative consequences.
Like I said in my post a couple messages ago, assuming that the CPU is
designed to run at the speed it is
> >The number of killer apps for 4+ cores
> >will likely remain small into the foreseeable future.
> >Greg
>
> I disagree... at least for the apps that matter to me. But only time
> will answer that. For me Quad is the value choice. In fact, I am
> thinking about a Xeon Dual Quad, which is really
> > The difference in encode times
> >between 4 cores 2.4GHz and 4 cores at 3.2GHz is dramatic--overclocking
> is
> >still very much alive and very much worthwhile.
>
> For you, maybe, not for me. I can spend hours editing, and encoding
> video... I might not even see an annoying anomaly in the f
